I bought a leupold 1-4x20 scope last spring for my new 30-06 x bolt. One of the main things i liked about the rifle was its light weight & nice balance. I had first put a 3x9 bausch & lombe on it, but it was larger & heavier than I wanted. After thinking about it I realized I Only ever used it at 3 or 4x so i decided to try the 1-4. I was pleased to find that the balance of the whole package was much improved as well as being lighter. I leave it on 2.5x all the time except for load development when i turn it up to 4x. I realize it wouldnt be so good for a 1000 metre match, but for an all round packing rifle it seems ideal, & i wont be buying any more big scopes. Is the trend towards huge scopes just part of the arms race of cool accessories? What are peoples thoughts on this?
small low powered scopes
- Thread starter rosebute
- Start date
on my hunting rifles the biggest scope I run is a 3x9, also have some 2x7, 1.5x8, and fixed 6's. I have been leaning to the sixes as I usually set my scopes on 4x or 5x anyway and never turn them up when hunting . the upper power is nice for the range but there hunting rifles not bench guns.. yes I to think the tend is to monster scopes, a trend I won't be following.
Depends on the circumstances. I actually hunt from first legal to last legal shooting light. Look up the time charts and take a look around at 1 hour before sunrise (for BC) and 1 hour after sunset. My latest scope purchase was a Zeiss Victory HT 2.5-10x50. Worth every penny for the hunting I do.
New Camper
CGN frequent flyer
- Location
- Lurking in the woods near SFRC.
The highest powered scope I have is variable 6.5-20 Zeiss which sits on a rifle used primarily for long distance target shooting: I have used it successfully on live animals though it is not ideal. My preferred size for deer is a variable 2-7x with the power set on the low end of the spectrum. I learned to shoot, and still use open sights for some applications and my first groundhog rifle was an old 340B with a fixed 2.5x Weaver. Given that open sights used to be the only sighting system available and they worked (and still do) well, magnification obviously can be excessive and enough of it can be a curse especially for large or moving game. High magnification in target shooting can spoil the fun when conditions for mirage are present. Magnification always costs more and unless the glass is high quality, imperfections become more apparent when magnification increases.
Given that most sniper rifles that were ever scoped bore magnifications between 2x and 10x, for most applications it has become an idiotic trend.
Given that most sniper rifles that were ever scoped bore magnifications between 2x and 10x, for most applications it has become an idiotic trend.
I use 2-7 or 2-8 on most of my rifles. I find the magnification is plenty for the types of hunting that I do and the lighter weight helps when I'm out all day. The bonus is that I like the look of a rifle with a smaller scope.
My favourite is my 1.7 - 10 ... but I do have a 2.5-15 for a long distance hunting rig when I'm put on some wide open logging cuts where shots at 800 yards are possible but I would not want to carry that rifle scope combo through the bush all day.
I also tend to keep my scopes on low power but I'm in Ontario, not hunting out west where it's a different style of hunting
I also tend to keep my scopes on low power but I'm in Ontario, not hunting out west where it's a different style of hunting
Big objectives allow brighter images at higher magnifications. The objective diameter divided by the magnification gives the exit pupil diameter.
If the exit pupil diameter is larger than your pupil diameter adapted for the darkness you're shooting in, it can't seem any brighter. Your pupil becomes the limiting factor.
Assume your pupil is 6mm. That's pretty big. Reason being, your pupil reacts to blue light primarily, and while the ground where the critters are is dark, the sky is still pretty bright, and still pretty blue. 5mm is even pretty optimistic.
20mm/3x=6.66. Good to go!
50mm/8x=6.25. Also good to go!
This means that a 1-4x20 scope and a 3-9x56 will (all else being equal) be identically bright at 3x. 4x, if your pupil is old and maxes out at 5mm like mine.
% light transmission has a remarkably small effect on this relationship.
I can shoot 1" groups at 100 yards from the bench with a scope set at 4X, and I'm not trying 300 yard shots any way you slice it, so big objectives aren't necessary for me (for ME. not everybody, just me)
Clarity is always nice, naturally.
As somebody said someplace in this forum, we're living in a golden age of scopes. Even cheap ones are really darn good!
If the exit pupil diameter is larger than your pupil diameter adapted for the darkness you're shooting in, it can't seem any brighter. Your pupil becomes the limiting factor.
Assume your pupil is 6mm. That's pretty big. Reason being, your pupil reacts to blue light primarily, and while the ground where the critters are is dark, the sky is still pretty bright, and still pretty blue. 5mm is even pretty optimistic.
20mm/3x=6.66. Good to go!
50mm/8x=6.25. Also good to go!
This means that a 1-4x20 scope and a 3-9x56 will (all else being equal) be identically bright at 3x. 4x, if your pupil is old and maxes out at 5mm like mine.
% light transmission has a remarkably small effect on this relationship.
I can shoot 1" groups at 100 yards from the bench with a scope set at 4X, and I'm not trying 300 yard shots any way you slice it, so big objectives aren't necessary for me (for ME. not everybody, just me)
Clarity is always nice, naturally.
As somebody said someplace in this forum, we're living in a golden age of scopes. Even cheap ones are really darn good!
Bartledan,
i had a docter and a zeiss in 2.5-10x48 and i still have a leupold m-8 3x20 and there is no way that the leupold was and is the same as any of a 48mm or 50mm scope, that is not possible just on the physic side. and im not you but when i put them side by side it was more clearer of course.
you are absolutely right that today scope is on a golden age.
Phil
i had a docter and a zeiss in 2.5-10x48 and i still have a leupold m-8 3x20 and there is no way that the leupold was and is the same as any of a 48mm or 50mm scope, that is not possible just on the physic side. and im not you but when i put them side by side it was more clearer of course.
you are absolutely right that today scope is on a golden age.
Phil
Some rifles look better with big scopes. For my varmint guns I like a long slow scope.
My close range guns and most of my big game hunting is close range usually have lower powered smaller scopes
2.5x20
4x32
6x32
2-7x32
2-7x40
3-9x40
6-24x42
My close range guns and most of my big game hunting is close range usually have lower powered smaller scopes
2.5x20
4x32
6x32
2-7x32
2-7x40
3-9x40
6-24x42
I did say "all else being equal". I doubt the M8 has quite the light transmission or clarity of the Zeiss or Doctor. 20/3 is 6.66, so the Zeiss and Doctor at 3x should have similar-ish brightness. Any advantage they have is due to better optical light transmission, not due to objective diameter. They are likely clearer scopes, too, and that would make the perceived brightness even higher.
The physics are solidly with my argument. I didn't believe them at first, so I checked. A larger exit pupil than your eye pupil is a waste.
All that said, your 42mm scopes would keep a 6.66 mm exit pupil all the way to 7.2x magnification. THAT is an advantage!
The jump in cost from 40mm to 50mm only gives a 20% increase in available zoom at a given brightness level, and 7.2x is pretty darn good!
http://www.nikon.com/products/sportoptics/how_to/guide/binoculars/basic/basic_05.htm
- Location
- Western Manitoba
For years, I used a Leupold 2-7 and Leupold M8-6x's with Duplex reticles on my big game hunting rifles (308 Win, 338 Win, 7x57, 30-06). Then went with a Weaver K3 Microtrac with post reticle when I got my 9.3x62 Mauser. Since using that one, I have been switching over all my "250 yard max" rifles to 2.5 and 3 power straight tubes with post reticles - M96 6.5x55 with 160 grain cast, 8x57 Mauser with 225 grain cast, .303 British with 200 grain cast. I find that the post reticle has plenty of precision for the things that I shoot at, and allows me to shoot comfortably with both eyes open. Another plus is that the straight tube scopes allow very low mounting - only concern is bolt handle clearance, which tends not to be an issue with my Mausers or Lee Enfields.
What was the reason?
I maintain it was either a reason rooted in the irrational (legends and marketing bunko) *or* to permit greater magnification while maintaining brightness. That is a VERY good reason! Greater magnification while maintaining brightness is a valid and valuable advantage to a larger objective lens.
If the rule was to use 50mm and 56mm lenses, we can hardly say there was any comparison being done. Everybody ran 50+ because everybody knows you need 50+.
I think we should consider all the 20mm and 24mm scopes being used at night by people who aren't just shooting, but being shot at.
There is a lot of voodoo and mythology in this brightness thing. A lot of what "everybody knows" turns out to be legends and marketing bunko.
You're a guy I have great respect for, so please don't take my disagreement as any sign of disrespect.
On my last hunting trip, I used my 2.5-8x36, and my buddy used his Zeiss Diavari something something x50-something. He'd been telling me over and over that my scope was no good for dusk and dawn... so we did the Pepsi challenge. At the same magnification, he eventually had to admit there was no real difference in brightness.
And the old Polish bastard never admits anything!
Since I stink at hunting, 4x is fine for me, so a 36mm objective is more than enough.
Cheers!
Twilight factor also comes into play for low-light performance. Multiply the magnification x objective diameter, and the twilight factor is the square root of that. You need both a large exit pupil and high twilight factor for low-light performance.
I have a 3x Leupold M8 on my 9.3x62, and while its adequate for the task, it's not a particularly bright optic nor a good low-light performer. Even a 4x M8 with a 32mm objective is noticeably brighter. I also found that scopes lower than 2 1/2x were not really any better than iron sights.
What was the reason?
I maintain it was either a reason rooted in the irrational (legends and marketing bunko) *or* to permit greater magnification while maintaining brightness. That is a VERY good reason! Greater magnification while maintaining brightness is a valid and valuable advantage to a larger objective lens.
If the rule was to use 50mm and 56mm lenses, we can hardly say there was any comparison being done. Everybody ran 50+ because everybody knows you need 50+.
I think we should consider all the 20mm and 24mm scopes being used at night by people who aren't just shooting, but being shot at.
There is a lot of voodoo and mythology in this brightness thing. A lot of what "everybody knows" turns out to be legends and marketing bunko.
You're a guy I have great respect for, so please don't take my disagreement as any sign of disrespect.
On my last hunting trip, I used my 2.5-8x36, and my buddy used his Zeiss Diavari something something x50-something. He'd been telling me over and over that my scope was no good for dusk and dawn... so we did the Pepsi challenge. At the same magnification, he eventually had to admit there was no real difference in brightness.
And the old Polish bastard never admits anything!
Since I stink at hunting, 4x is fine for me, so a 36mm objective is more than enough.
Cheers!
not Polish but eastern euopean guys can be hard on the head lol especially on hunting side.
wont be hurt by discussion for sure. i agree too that i never tried to hunt with smaller objective so i cant comment.
i never tried to use a battue scope like my sb for night moon hunting but my meopta 7x50 was very good for it.
and you are right too that our peers teaching us the way it was and it was not a place where you can try to make any innovations ...
What was the reason?
I maintain it was either a reason rooted in the irrational (legends and marketing bunko) *or* to permit greater magnification while maintaining brightness. That is a VERY good reason! Greater magnification while maintaining brightness is a valid and valuable advantage to a larger objective lens.
If the rule was to use 50mm and 56mm lenses, we can hardly say there was any comparison being done. Everybody ran 50+ because everybody knows you need 50+.
I think we should consider all the 20mm and 24mm scopes being used at night by people who aren't just shooting, but being shot at.
There is a lot of voodoo and mythology in this brightness thing. A lot of what "everybody knows" turns out to be legends and marketing bunko.
You're a guy I have great respect for, so please don't take my disagreement as any sign of disrespect.
On my last hunting trip, I used my 2.5-8x36, and my buddy used his Zeiss Diavari something something x50-something. He'd been telling me over and over that my scope was no good for dusk and dawn... so we did the Pepsi challenge. At the same magnification, he eventually had to admit there was no real difference in brightness.
And the old Polish bastard never admits anything!
Since I stink at hunting, 4x is fine for me, so a 36mm objective is more than enough.
Cheers!
to even add more to help your side lol i can say that i never used a Leupold Bushnell or Redfield before moving to Canada ... those brands cant be use on our so expensive rifles lol nor weaver or leupold mounts EAW or Pivot mounts were the rules ... since all the high end rifles and scopes are gone and im using the crowd tool lol with a lot of satisfaction never had a hunting say where i needed those high end scopes so far ...
Bartledan - pm me to get together at the PG range. We can put out some test targets designed to evaluate clarity and resolution. You bring your 2.5-8x36 and I'll bring my Zeiss 2.5-10x50. The one who can correctly identify the forms later into the evening wins. Since I firmly believe that I have an unfair advantage, I will put up $200 to you putting up $100.
Bartledan - pm me to get together at the PG range. We can put out some test targets designed to evaluate clarity and resolution. You bring your 2.5-8x36 and I'll bring my Zeiss 2.5-10x50. The one who can correctly identify the forms later into the evening wins. Since I firmly believe that I have an unfair advantage, I will put up $200 to you putting up $100.
Friend, at what time did I say anything at all about clarity or resolution? I respectfully suggest going back through the thread and having a read. I certainly hope that a scope costing 4 times as much has at least some advantage in clarity and resolution. If not, then why buy it? Cachet?
A better test would be a Zeiss 2-7x32 vs your 2.5-10x50, or my VX-3 2.5-8x36 vs a VX-3 with a 50mm objective. Again, all must be set to a low magnification suck that all exit pupils are larger than the human pupil.
Cheers
When the day comes that I buy a fine European sporting rifle, I'm sure I'll top it with a pricey giant ocular scope in mounts that cost more than any rifle I currently own, and you guys can tear me apart over it!
